On 4 August 2014 08:35, holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 22:09 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: >> * Re-write what datadiff produces directly inside >> _pytest/assertion/utils.py. It's not that a crazy task. This is only >> a bad idea if datadiff keeps evolving a lot, but given it's last >> commit was in 2012 I think we're fine. > > That's the best option IMO.
Ok, I'm happy with that too (in fact with my conservative hat on this is my preferred option), it will just take a bit longer I suspect. >> So I'm all for improving out of the box assertion reprs. The simplest >> option is vendoring datadiff (maybe with a few tweaks), any objections >> to that approach? The only downside I see is that the license becomes >> more complicated. > > Isn't it maybe enough to look at the improved output and implement it? > > I'd ideally like to avoid licensing complications because i somewhat > often get questions from companies and distributors wrt to licensing. > But i agree it's not a super-big deal in this case likely. Yes, keeping the license simple is a valid concern. -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org _______________________________________________ Pytest-dev mailing list Pytest-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
